187797

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      20/00990/CON                                     Page  1  of  6

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 20/00990/CON Applicant : Mr Paul Jaggar Proposal : Registered building consent for erection of a dwelling with integral garage to be attached to (In association with 20/00989/B) Registered Building Nos. 203 Site Address : 22 Shore Road Underway Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5DX

Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.10.2020 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The works hereby granted registered building consent shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with paragraph 2(2)(a) of schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented registered building consents.

C 2. Prior to the commencement of works on the approved scheme, a schedule of materials must be approved as they apply to the external finish of the building, must be approved in writing by the Department and the development must be carried out in accordance with these details.

The scheme must be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings in particular with the shutters applied which may be closed as well as opened.

Reason: to ensure that the development is appropriate for the area.

C 3. Any damage to the adjacent Registered Building during the course of the works hereby approved shall be made good upon completion of said works. All making good works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and thereafter implemented within time period to be agreed with the Department.

Reason: to ensure the satisfactory preservation of this registered building

C 4. Prior to the commencement of any works in respect of the approval hereby granted, the applicant must have approved in writing by the Department, details of the existing and

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      20/00990/CON                                     Page  2  of  6

proposed ground levels representative of the elevations already submitted and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these detail.

Reason: to ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the submitted drawings.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to accord with the land use designation, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35, Transport Policy 7 and would not be in conflict with the proposed Conservation Area designation, the Residential Design Guidance and the Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the location plan and plans 182/0101A, 182/0102A, 182/0103A, 182/0104A, 182/0105A, 182/0106, 182/0107 all received on 26th August, 2020. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 9(3):

Athol House as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTED AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

THE SITE 1.1 The site is a piece of land which lies on the corner of Shore Road Underway and a narrow ginnel that runs to the side (south) of 2, High Street and up a flight of steps to the High Street. 2, High Street which is a two storey traditional cottage fronting onto High Street but with a flat roofed dormer on the front pitch which creates a mansard shaped roof. Below this is another mansard roofed single storey structure - Harbour Cottage - which is in the same ownership as 22, Shore Road Underway which is also indicated on the location plan as being in the same ownership as the application site.

1.2 The streetscene of this part of Shore Road Underway is very much dominated by stone faced buildings, many with a warehouse character - all residential and some with their original window and door apertures and others with more modern openings. The buildings are on the shore side of the road with boat and car parking on the harbour side.

1.3 A new addition to the streetscene is the house to the north of The Old Sail Loft: this, approved under 11/01433/B does not stand out in the streetscene, despite having its roof at right angles to the highway and having modern finish materials (glazing and timber) but due to its proportions and dark finishes, sits quite comfortably next to The Old Sail Loft which is a Registered Building (RB 203). 22, Shore Road Underway is also a Registered Building incorporated in the Registration of the Old Sail Loft.

THE PROPOSAL

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      20/00990/CON                                     Page  3  of  6

2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling on the application site. This follows a previous application for the same principle but in a different form. That application, 07/00998/B accompanied by 07/01000/CON) was for a traditional building which followed the form and finish of number 22 but with a lower eaves and ridge level and dormers in the front elevation.

2.2 What is now proposed follows the lead from the new house alongside the Old Sail Loft, turning the ridge through 90 degrees and using dark cladding (charred Siberian Larch hit and miss), standing seam zinc roof with a vertical, single light window in the rear elevation and two slimmer, vertical and one small square window in the side (south) elevation with larger windows on the front elevation of the building which has the same eves level but with a shorter ridge height than 22, Shore Road Underway but where these windows are hidden behind the hit and miss cladding as is the garage door which is also on the front elevation. This cladding will be retractable and the applicant has provided additional information which indicates how it would look when retracted and when closed.

2.3 The new building sits apart from Harbour Cottage, sharing its rear elevation with that of number 22 which also sits a little distance from the rear boundary of its site.

2.4 The garage has a garage door opening of 3.25m and a depth of 5.25m so could accommodate a single vehicle. There is in addition, space to the side and in front of the building to accommodate further vehicles.

2.5 Following the submission of criticism from the local authority and two local residents, the applicant's agent has provided further information to describe the evolution of the scheme as follows:

"The site for the proposed house has planning approval for a similar sized dwelling which was granted in 2007 and started on site, meaning that the approved dwelling could be built to the 2007 approved plans. Initially designs were drawn up for a contemporary house utilising the volume and orientation of the approved house through varying the condition During initial design development the planning department suggested that a full application would allow the orientation of the proposal to be turned 90 degrees giving the current "form" of the house complimenting the vernacular design of the sail makers loft and cottages.

When reviewing the information about the site we were interested to hear that the site once had a structure on it and so investigated this to see if we could find any historical photographs or drawings.

We found that there was a previous building on the site and have used this as design inspiration to create a contemporary version of the building that we have uncovered from around 1910.

The approved scheme for this site is a three storey cottage with integral garage and entrance at ground floor with a kitchen living room at first floor level and a bathroom and bedroom at second floor level. The sea facing facade is approved in Manx stone with concrete surrounds and dorma windows to the first floor. The inclusion of a garage door and the dorma windows are alien features to the more historic adjoining buildings and general streetscape. Though the vernacular use of Manx stone as seen in the adjacent registered building is beautiful its use with modern thinner walls combined with concrete surrounds, a garage door opening and render to the side elevation would detract from the vernacular Manx stone adjacent and as such we have sought to use an alternative material."

2.6 They provide images of an original building on the site which resembles what is now proposed in terms of the orientation of the ridge and the materials.

PLANNING POLICY

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      20/00990/CON                                     Page  4  of  6

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as Predominantly Residential. The site is within a proposed Conservation Area and the adjacent two buildings are Registered.

3.2 As such, the principle of the erection of a dwelling here is acceptable and the appropriate Strategic and other policies are as follows:

Planning Policy Statement and Environment Policy 32 both require the importance of Registered Buildings' special architectural or historic interest to be considered in any development proposal and anything which would adversely affect this character will not be permitted.

Planning Policy Statement, EP35 and General Policy 2 all require that the character and appearance of the area is considered in the determination of any development proposal with the first two requiring that such is enhanced or preserved.

3.3 The Port St. Mary Conservation Area Appraisal, undertaken in 2009 refers to this area when referring to the village's industrial heritage (referring to the stone apartments alongside the site to the south), to the Registered Buildings on and adjacent to the site and to the stone finish and traditional materials of many of the buildings on Shore Road.

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications for development, the most relevant are those referred to in paragraph 2.1 above. The new house alongside the Old Sail Loft was approved at appeal as were a number of alterations to the Old Sail Loft itself.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services do not oppose (21.09.20).

5.2 Port St. Mary Commissioners strongly object to the application on the basis that it is a modern building which fails to preserve the historical continuity of the area of the Port's sailing history. They also consider the development is over-intensive (24.09.20).

5.3 The owners of Athol House object to the application on the basis that anything "squeezed" into the streetscene should be designed in such a way as to augment the traditional buildings in the area and not disrupt it, as will such a modern design and which will also adversely affect the character of the Registered Building and will blight the whole row. The site is presently used for car parking for the adjacent properties. They believe that the colour and materials will over-shadow their home and back yard and consider the building "menacing and unfinished" and would remove their only view of the sea (06.10.20).

5.4 The Registered Buildings Officer makes the following comments:

I think it was really important that we received the proposed elevations with the shutters open. I consider the scale and massing of the proposals to be appropriate for the site and have no objection to the contemporary approach taken. I do feel that option C in the design statement was more appropriate for this site. I still have concerns regarding the proposed sold to void ratios and the impact this will have in terms of its relationship to the registered building and general streetscape of the proposed conservation area. I do not object to the application but consider design option C to be more successful. Should you be minded to approve the application please ensure prior approval of all materials and that the proposed shutters are to be retained and maintained as their removal or loss would in my opinion result in development that would impact upon the setting of the Registered Building (21.10.20).

ASSESSMENT

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      20/00990/CON                                     Page  5  of  6

6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed dwelling would have an acceptable impact on the character and importance of the adjacent Registered Buildings and whether the dwelling would have an acceptable impact on the area having regard to the proposed Conservation Area status thereof.

Impact on adjacent Registered Buildings 6.2 The introduction of a new building alongside the existing Registered Buildings would have an impact, however that which has been built alongside the Old Sail Loft demonstrates that new buildings can be accommodated in an historic streetscene without damage to its character or appearance. Whilst the approved scheme emulated some of the features of the surrounding buildings, the scheme as now proposed resembles what was on the site originally and enables the two adjacent Registered Buildings to appear clearly as older buildings with their different materials and profiles and in some ways designing something to contrast with this enhances and reinforces their more dominating position in the streetscene.

Impact on surrounding area/proposed Conservation Area 6.3 The CA appearance and to an extent, the character will change as a result of the introduction of a modern new building here. However, the new house adjacent to the Old Sail Loft has demonstrated that new, modern buildings can be accommodated in an historic streetscene without having a significant or a negative impact.

6.4 The other new house has demonstrated that the use of modern materials can be acceptable where they are unobtrusive and in the current application case the materials are dark and some replicate the natural slates and stone in colour if not actual materials. The proposed house, by virtue of its materials, height and shape will not compete with the other buildings in the streetscene, which are generally taller and bigger and the proposed dwelling has not been designed to create a statement but rather to sit unobtrusively in a streetscene where the other buildings take precedence.

6.5 As such it is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the streetscene, in compliance with GP2 and acknowledging the potential Conservation Area designation.

6.6 Whilst there has been an objection submitted in respect of the impact of the development on the outlook from Athol House, this application for RB consent does not consider the impact of a development on the living conditions of those in neighbouring property: this is a matter for the planning application and the objector's comments are dealt with in that assessment as they refer to both 20/00990/CON and 20/00989/B in their submission.

CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to accord with the land use designation, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35, Transport Policy 7 and would not be in conflict with the proposed Conservation Area designation, the Residential Design Guidance and the Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons:

o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application; o Manx National Heritage, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 In addition to those above, the Regulation 9(3) requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      20/00990/CON                                     Page  6  of  6

be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. __

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Permitted

Committee Meeting Date: 02.11.2020

Signed : S CORLETT Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.